One of the characteristic features of Jewish political activism is its assault on European individualism. Instead, Jewry promotes an Oriental, Ottoman-style model in which ethno-religious groups have corporate representation, complete with "headmen" who negotiate with rulers on behalf of the collective. It is a pre-democratic model of societal functioning, one that Jews continually hark back to. In a modern democracy, every individual has the right to vote. There is no need for front groups claiming to speak for various subsets of the population. But Jews fear and mistrust the verdict of individual goy. They prefer a pre (or anti) democratic model that allows them to win the favour of elites and gain the award of special privileges.

Here we have another illustration of this tendency as a Jewish MP implicitly demands an ethnic veto over democracy itself.

Furious Labour MPs have called upon the party to re-open an investigation into alleged antisemitism by two students at Oxford University.
At a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party on Monday night, MPs Ian Austin, Ruth Smeeth and John Mann all hit out at the NEC's ruling.

Last week the JC revealed how the party's national executive committee had decided that no action was being taken against the pair, both members of the Oxford University Labour Club.
This was despite party bosses ruling that the students, who were both supporters of leader Jeremy Corbyn, should be given a warning for their behaviour.

Speaking at Monday's PLP meeting Mr Austin said: "Last week's decision resulted in fury in the Jewish community and has been criticised by the Chief Rabbi, the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Labour Movement and the all-party group on antisemitism.

"There was a poll last year that showed that the Labour party now has the support of 8% of the Jewish community - a party that can only rely on the support of 8% of any community doesn't deserve the support of anybody else. This has to be looked at again."

Austin nominally represents the Labour party. Yet he is publicly proclaiming that the Labour party does not deserve anyone's support. Is it acceptable for a member, much less an elected representative, of any political party to publicly declare that the party does not deserve anyone's support? Normally, this would result in disciplinary action being taken, followed by expulsion. In this case, however, since the offending party is Jewish, and thus benefits from Jewish Privilege, it is a safe assumption that this will not happen.

But think about the broader implications of what he is saying. Austin declares that in order to deserve support and thus be in a position to assume power, a political party must be able to gain more than 8% support from Jews but, logically, also from every other ethnic group too. This in practice amounts to an ethnic veto over democracy. If a party or candidate cannot exceed this minimum threshold value of support from every ethnic group, it does not deserve support and should therefore not be in power.

Austin doesn't tell us what this minimum support level should be, but, from the context, it clearly must be higher than 8%. To put things in perspective, Donald Trump got only 8% support from "African-Americans". So his election was invalid too. And does this logic apply in Israel where the Likud party got between 3% and 5% of the Arab vote (link)?

It's worth recalling that, as far as we know, the supposed "antisemitism" at Oxford consisted of a couple of Jewish students being called "Zios". Yet this triviality has been discussed in parliament and in the national and even international press. Thousands of vulnerable British children were enslaved, raped and tortured over periods of years by Muslim gangs and it failed to generate anything like this response from the powers that be.